v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 14

First topic message reminder :

Wednesday group was dominated by the only Ice Hockey entrant Wayne Gretzky, he bagged 58% of the vote and sails into round 2 alongside crickets Garfield Sobers. Exiting the competition at the first stage are Kenenisa Bekele and Franz Beckenbauer who only managed a combined 11 votes.

Today we have just the one article written by forum members, please feel free to submit your own argument below for the ones not championed.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Muhammad Ali- Boxing- Championed by 6oldenbhoy

When I offered to take part in this exercise I was originally asked to champion another fighter. I had my reservations as, in my opinion, this man’s aura was built more on the reputation he had acquired rather than his in ring achievement (though I must admit he did achieve a heck of a lot). I had no such qualms with the second option, the self proclaimed ‘Greatest’ Muhammad Ali. At this point I must admit that, although I have been a fight fan for many years, some of my earliest memories are of watching Michael Carruth and Wayne McCullough in the Barcelona Olympics and no Saturday night was complete with watching the boxing on ITV, I have never been a massive fan of Ali. I have seen almost all of his fights, viewed all the major documentaries and read various articles on the man but I've always had an almost take it or leave it attitude towards him. However, upon undertaking this activity, I have found an admiration and respect for the man who would be a worthy winner of this accolade. His career encompassed everything, monumental highs, catastrophic lows, triumph in the face of adversity, not to mention controversy all now tinged with tragedy. To fit all of this into an article would be an impossible task, such was the effect he had on Boxing and the World around him.

Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr was born on the 17/1/1942 to a Methodist father and Baptist mother. Few could have predicted what this child would go on and accomplish. The story begins when at the age of twelve young Cassius had his bicycle stolen. A thirst for revenge drove him to his local boxing gym where he should such aptitude for the sport that in a mere six years he was crowned Olympic Light Heavyweight Champion in Rome in 1960. Nino Benvenuti, the darling of his home crowd, won the Val Barker Trophy but many thought this accolade belonged to Clay.

Upon returning home he promptly turned profession under the tutelage of Angelo Dundee. He quickly developed into a boxer fleet of foot with a stinging jab,lightning reflexes and with more than adequate power. Nineteen straight wins led to a title shot against the fearsome Sonny Liston. Going into the contest Clay was a 7/1 underdog, but won the title when Liston retired on his stool at the end of the sixth round. The rematch wouldn’t last as long, Liston going down in the first. Some claimed Liston took a dive, others claim it was a legitimate punch. The fight did create one the most iconic sporting images of the twentieth century, where Ali (shortly after the Liston fight he had changed his name to Cassius X, then to Muhammad Ali) stands over his fallen opponent screaming at him to continue. Ali went on to defend the title a further eight times.

Muhammad was stripped of his title soon after his final defense against Zora Folley. His boxing license was also revoked and was sentenced to five years in jail. He appealed and remained on bail but was unable to box for three and a half years. Eventually given a license to fight in Atlanta, Ali won the first of two comeback fights before challenging Joe Frazier for the undisputed Heavyweight Championship, in a bout now known as “The Fight of the Century”. It was a thriller from start to finish, Ali starting the faster, but Frazier slowly walked him down. Frazier was ahead on all scorecards going into the final round when he unleashed a tremendous left hook that put Ali on the canvas. Ali bravely rose and heard the final bell but lost a unanimous decision. It was noted that Ali did not have the usual bounce in his step and one could argue showed the effects of three and a half years out.

Ali would not challenge for the World title for another three years. He won thirteen of his next fourteen fights, avenging the only loss he suffered in this period. A win over Joe Frazier set up a bout with Big George Foreman. This was to be Ali’s finest hour. Going into the bout, entitled the “Rumble in the Jungle”, nobody was giving Ali a chance. Ali had suffered losses to both Ken Norton and Joe Frazier whereas Foreman had knocked both of the out in them in the second round. Ali started brightly enough, but then adopted a tactic of lying on the ropes and absorbing punishment from Foreman. Foreman punched but Ali blocked them, shooting out counters of his own at every chance. This tactic, which Ali would later describe as “Rope-a-Dope” would have been seen to be suicide to many but becoming increasingly effective as Foreman threw haymaker after haymaker to down Ali, but Ali took them and answered back with his own. Entering the eighth Foreman was visibly exhausted. Ali pounced, trapping him on the ropes pummeling him with a barrage of blow that put Foreman down. He was unable to answer the count and a New Champion was crowned. Ali defended the title a further three times before facing Joe Frazier in the final installment of their classic trilogy.

The “Thrilla in Manila” took place, funnily enough, in the Filipino capital in front of crowd of 28,000. What followed was fourteen rounds of unsheathed brutality before Frazier was retired on his stool. Frazier’s eyes were so badly swollen that he claimed he couldn't see the punches coming, yet still protested when Eddie Futch withdrew him from the contest. Ali led from the front punishing Frazier with hooks, jabs and uppercuts wobbling Frazier frequently. Frazier gamely fought back every time and in the mid rounds unleashed one of his trademark left hooks right to Ali’s jaw. This punch looked like it could have felled a tree, yet Ali took it and stayed on his feet. By the end of the fight Frazier was taking continuous punishment. In the fourteenth, Ali landed punch after punch on a more and a more helpless Frazier. It was a mercy when the fight was stopped. Ali described the contest as the closest thing to dying he had experienced, whilst showing humility, describing Frazier as the toughest man alive. A further six defenses of the title followed before he lost the title to “Neon” Leon Spinks. He won the title back in the return before retiring. A brief comeback last two fights, both defeats, though Ali was a shell of his former self by this stage.

When people talk of athletes transcending sport, Ali is the one who first comes to mind. When you ask the common man or women on the street who they most associate with the sport of Boxing, Ali’s name will be said most frequently. As big a fan as I am of the Klitschkos, the average person on the street would struggle to name either of them as Heavyweight Champion of the world. When Ali was Champion, it was the exact opposite. He was one of the most recognized faces in the world, never mind sportsmen. This was the reason Sports Illustrated named him Sportsman of the Century, as did the BBC. The Heavyweight Championship of the World was once talked of as the greatest prize in sport and it was fighters like Muhammad Ali that made it so. This is a sport that has so little margin for error. Moving your head even fractionally may have devastating results. As former Heavyweight title challenger Tex Cobb once said "If you screw things up in tennis, it's 15-love. If you screw up in boxing, it's your ass." Ali excelled at this sport even when he had returned a faded fighter physically from his imposed exile. However like all greats at any sport he found other ways to win. His in ring intelligence set him apart from his contemporaries when he had lost the bounce in his step and his reflexes had dulled. It must not be forgotten that he displayed all these skills and attributes in what was the golden period of Heavyweight boxing. While he is remembered for his talents by some, others will recall him for his mouth. Ali was the ultimate showman. The press loved him and although he could be vulgar and downright disrespectful to his opponents at times, it could be said that this hyped fights and helped him to get that mental edge on his opponent. As I alluded to in my opening paragraph, I had my doubts when I was asked to champion another fighter due to his record, I find Ali to be the complete package. His record stands alone as far as Heavyweights go, while he had the showmanship and charisma that contributed to his everlasting legacy on sport. Long after we are all gone people will still talk of Ali. The Ali of today has been ravaged by Parkinsonism, an unwanted souvenir of a career spanning twenty one years inside the ring. Yet to see him light the Olympic flame at the Atlanta games was a one of the most iconic moments of the 20th Century. To this day he continues to battle his condition with just as much courage as he exhibited throughout his career in the ring. It takes a brave man to step through those ropes and Ali has shown both through his career and the aftermath, that he is right up there with the bravest of them all.

Richie McCaw - championed by Pete C (Kiwireddevil)
Richard Hugh McCaw has spent the last decade dominating every opponent on the rugby field, in that time winning the International Rugby Board’s Player of the Year award three times, and being the key player in the All Blacks’ 2011 Rugby World Cup win, as well as 8 Tri-Nations/Rugby Championship titles, 3 Northern Hemisphere Grand Slams, 4 Super Rugby titles (the toughest domestic rugby competition on the planet) and 3 runners-up medals with the Crusaders and 6 National Championships with Canterbury.

He was the first New Zealander to play 100 rugby tests – a result of his dominance of his position, as generally the Black jersey is the hardest one to win, and to retain. In his 116 international caps he has been on the winning side over 100 times, more than any other rugby player. Captain of the All Blacks since 2006 he is now the most capped captain NZ has ever had, and he’s simply the greatest player from the world’s greatest rugby nation.

As an open-side flanker he has been consistently the best player in his position throughout his career, brushing off challenges from the likes of George Smith, Marty Holla, Schalk Burger, Heinrich Brussow and David Pocock along the way, while he has also been versatile enough to play on the blindside flank and at number 8 at international level. His great skills are:
His fitness – developed by running 10km every 2nd day from the age of 12,
Pain threshold (medical testing found that after a match his nerve endings resembled those of a burns victim), and he played through the final 3 games of the 2011 Rugby World Cup with 3 broken bones in one foot
Anticipation – his reading of the game of rugby is superb meaning he gets to the right place before most other players,
Adaptability – he is 2nd to none at adjusting his style of play to suit the interpretations. The head of the IRB’s refereeing panel was overheard to say to a senior referee:
“The trouble with McCaw is he’s so fast we can’t see if he’s doing anything illegal.”
“Then how to we control him?”
“We can only penalise what we can see.”

mystiroakey wrote:Thats only because you kiwis wanted him!

He would have been the most succesfull All black ever in your team!

You might have even got a WC in that time!

Perhaps. But only 'cos Colin Meads taught him how to play

He probally learnt abit there if i am gonna be honest- I still cant work out why he played for your under 21's mind!

Probably going to get panned, but I voted tactically for McCaw. Ali is of course the outstanding candidate and thoroughly deserves to dominate this one, but I love watching McCaw play and think he's certainly the best that I've seen in my lifetime. His reading of the game is absolutely superb, and he's a phenomenal role model to boot. Basically, since I prefer RU to boxing, I'm going down that route.

I'm not a fan of Senna, never actually saw him race though which may contribute to that.

I bet Ali would have made a decent back row forward.

I would bet MJ would have made a decent heavyweight

Not knowing someone can be part of a suitable justification for rejection IMO. A little of my thought process to try and justify why I think it is valid grounds for rejection of a candidate.

In my view, in a GOAT scenario on a sports forum it is reasonable to have expected to have heard of the participants outwith the write up provided.

I can see it is in part the posters' fault for not knowing/finding out more about them all and I'm happy to shoulder blame for that shortfalling. I do, however, think that a true cross discipline GOAT would have filtered into the consciousness of most sports fans anyway, and it is that angle I take when choosing not to select those I have not heard of. Yes I may miss some with merit for GOAT in their field but I believe I would be unlikely to miss the cross discipline GOAT we are ultimately voting for.

Examples to me are Babe Ruth and Wayne Gretzky. I know nothing of baseball or ice hockey. Their abilities, records and reputations amongst those who do have knowledge have transcended their sport into my knowledge and so would form a part of my thinking for a GOAT to send through (even though I didn't vote for Ruth on his day in the end).

Benkele's yesterday for example hadn't, McCaw's today hadn't (although, he does look like an excellent all time rugby player on the back of the write up) so I did not consider them as suitable candidates for ultimate GOAT against their competition (in my opinion).

It may be flawed and it can be dismissed but that is why I feel that not having heard of someone can form a part of why not to vote for certain candidates.

Roller_Coaster wrote:Not knowing someone can be part of a suitable justification for rejection IMO. A little of my thought process to try and justify why I think it is valid grounds for rejection of a candidate.

In my view, in a GOAT scenario on a sports forum it is reasonable to have expected to have heard of the participants outwith the write up provided.

I can see it is in part the posters' fault for not knowing/finding out more about them all and I'm happy to shoulder blame for that shortfalling. I do, however, think that a true cross discipline GOAT would have filtered into the consciousness of most sports fans anyway, and it is that angle I take when choosing not to select those I have not heard of. Yes I may miss some with merit for GOAT in their field but I believe I would be unlikely to miss the cross discipline GOAT we are ultimately voting for.

Examples to me are Babe Ruth and Wayne Gretzky. I know nothing of baseball or ice hockey. Their abilities, records and reputations amongst those who do have knowledge have transcended their sport into my knowledge and so would form a part of my thinking for a GOAT to send through (even though I didn't vote for Ruth on his day in the end).

Benkele's yesterday for example hadn't, McCaw's today hadn't (although, he does look like an excellent all time rugby player on the back of the write up) so I did not consider them as suitable candidates for ultimate GOAT against their competition (in my opinion).

It may be flawed and it can be dismissed but that is why I feel that not having heard of someone can form a part of why not to vote for certain candidates.

part of reason, yes. And I expect the ultimate winner of this discussion to be someone who has truly transcended sport, to the extent that people who don't follow the sport at all have heard of him and know of his greatness (Bradman, Ali, maybe Merckx, Federer, Bolt/Owens, Pele/Maradonna, Michael Jordan are all IMO examples of this). What I do object to is people simply stating "never heard of him, won't vote for him". There has to be an argument for one of the others being a stronger candidate beyond the fact you're a fan of that particular sport so their name is better known to you. Like I said, yesterday I genuinely hadn't heard of Gretsky (which is due to me having no interest in Ice hockey) but still voted for him on the basis of his very strong case.

My post wasn't a pop at you BTW, so apologies for any offense caused.

MFC - I realise it wasn't a pop at me at all. No offence taken.

Just posted really to highlight that there is a basis for "not heard of - not voting for" beyond the appearance of the (lack of) justified rationale.

With me it's a case of considered lack of consideration!!!

I think McCaw's getting a hard deal on here.

I would argue strongly that Johnson was neither the best player in that England side (step up Richard Hill) nor the best lock of his time (John Eales). Johnson was a tremendous player, and perhaps one of the best ever leaders.

McCaw on the other hand is (IMO) clearly the best 7 ever: able to tackle, poach (turnover ball), "cheat" (for want of a better word, but I don't mean this in a negative sense - the ability to cheat well is a massive part of any RU's forward's game) but also be the link up between the forwards and the half-back (in a more Martyn Williams style of play) as well as anyone in history. Most 7s do one of those things outstandingly well, but mcCaw did all 4 absolutely brilliantly, and that to me sets him apart. Moreover, he led NZ to a WC win at home, quite a triumph.

I certainly think that there is a case for McCaw being the best ever RU player if you can ever decide something like that given all the different skills on offer. In time, I'm sure people will recognise this.

I don't think there is a serious argument for either Senna or Johnson being GOATs in their sport, and as such I'm surprised and disappointed they are doing better than McCaw so far.

In fact I'm sure some (most?) would argue that Ali isn't the P4P GOAT of boxing (that would be SRR surely?). However if you are looking at impact and transcending sports then clearly Ali is one of the absolute front-runners for this title, although I would also rank the likes of Federer, Phelps and Mercx as contenders as well as Bradman.

mystiroakey wrote:I would bet MJ would have made a decent heavyweight

And I would bet he wouldn't. Let's face it, he's no Freddie flintoff.

I remember there being a huge poll amongst players and managers and ex players going into the 2003 world cup. Who was the best player in the world.
As far as I can remember Johnny Wilkinson was the choice for about 80% of everyone asked, I dont think Johnson even got a mention. Maybe thats just how locks are seen though.

Mike, as I said earlier, there's quite a bit of debate as to whether McCaw is even the greatest All Black Number 7 of all time, with Michael Jones being just as popular a choice. Probably a better pure footballer, Jones, although not a leader in the same class, but a leading cog in the outstanding WC winning side of 87.

Whatever the case there, and I accept that the margin is a fine one either way, I think it's far too much of a jump to acclaim him the greatest ever rugby player. Virtually every New Zealander would place Meads at the top of that list from their own country, and there is even the odd candidate from elsewhere! Clearly a great, McCaw, but I would place Ali higher in his sport than I do Mccaw in his, without even considering gobal impact and non-sporting factors.

In rugby I think professionalism changed the game so much I would find it hard to rate any players from the amateur era as the greatest.

Mike Selig wrote:McCaw on the other hand is (IMO) clearly the best 7 ever: able to tackle, poach (turnover ball), "cheat" (for want of a better word, but I don't mean this in a negative sense - the ability to cheat well is a massive part of any RU's forward's game) but also be the link up between the forwards and the half-back (in a more Martyn Williams style of play) as well as anyone in history. Most 7s do one of those things outstandingly well, but mcCaw did all 4 absolutely brilliantly, and that to me sets him apart. Moreover, he led NZ to a WC win at home, quite a triumph.

Mike

Wouldn't necessarily say McCaw cheats - more that he has an ability (similar to most great 7s) to bend the rules a long way without being penalised. It's all part of the job, and one that Richie McCheat McCaw is simply better at than his contemporaries. His job, particularly in a defensive ruck, is to play to the limit of what the ref will let him do, and he is fantastic at adjusting to their individual interpretations.

Of course the England 2003 RWC team were all and neither Back nor Hill ever kept their hands in the way of the ball when the ref couldn't see. Oh, and a squadron of pigs have just requested clearance for take off.

manos de piedra wrote:In rugby I think professionalism changed the game so much I would find it hard to rate any players from the amateur era as the greatest.

In a purely objective sense this is clearly true - that's why both today's candidates should be seriously considered. Being a full time professional player, with all that means in terms of fitness regimes and skills training obviously puts the modern guys well ahead of the amateurs. However, it is still plausible to make a subjective argument that (for example) Gareth Edwards is the best ever scrum half, because he was better than all his contemporaries by a larger margin than anyone from the pro era.

dummy_half wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:In rugby I think professionalism changed the game so much I would find it hard to rate any players from the amateur era as the greatest.

In a purely objective sense this is clearly true - that's why both today's candidates should be seriously considered. Being a full time professional player, with all that means in terms of fitness regimes and skills training obviously puts the modern guys well ahead of the amateurs. However, it is still plausible to make a subjective argument that (for example) Gareth Edwards is the best ever scrum half, because he was better than all his contemporaries by a larger margin than anyone from the pro era.

I appreciate that argument alright, and it holds merit. But in cases where I think it can be clearly seen that one era/period is more competitive and of a higher standard than another then I would choose the athlete from the era I consider stronger overall.

It's a bit disappointing how few people contribute to these threads , I thought it would lead to a bit of cross board fertilisation but it seems by and large most people would rather discuss the same subjects over and over again in their cliques.

Tough luck on McCaw, Johnson and Senna. Compared to Ali, they can only be Nash to Sobers.

In most cases just look at the present and you will find the highest standard and the most competitive era. in almost all sports..

However boxing is actually possibly one of the sports that doesnt follow this patern.. With the likes of the NFL rugby union, rugby league etc etc talken the big strong lads away for decent money.You also have other sports directly competing with not only the players but also the fans(ultimate fighting and all that). You also have the overly PC world that we live in today where boxing may not be seen as a gentlemans sport etc etc.

Boxing may well have actually become less competitive due to less particpation. However what still will hold it up quite well is that fitness levels ,dieting and tech,etc is still going upwards which will benefit the boxers overall conditioning

"Nash to Sobers"

Or Steve Williams to Tiger Woods . . . . . . . !



Martin Johnson is certainly the ugliest candidate so far . . . . . . . .

Diggers wrote:It's a bit disappointing how few people contribute to these threads , I thought it would lead to a bit of cross board fertilisation but it seems by and large most people would rather discuss the same subjects over and over again in their cliques.

From my point of view Diggers, my early enthusiasm wained as there are too many people nominated and we are still only in round 1., we've got the round of 32, 16, 8 and 4 to go. In addititon there are too many Cricketers in it. Must have been 8 or 9 by now.

It's been a good idea, but poorly thought out in order to maintain interest in the long time it will take to play out to a conclusion. I expect it will get more interesting when the dross is whittled down, but that's a long way off.

SR , Diggs.

Is it grumpy time again

Even as a New Zealand All Black supporter, I cant understand why McCaw is being considered in this competition, He just has not met the "Of all time" criteria or in other words the test of time,, for gods sake he is still playing..

On the same train of thought can anyone explain to me why current sportspeople like Bolt,Federer etc etc also are being rated as the best of all time???

super_realist wrote:

Diggers wrote:It's a bit disappointing how few people contribute to these threads , I thought it would lead to a bit of cross board fertilisation but it seems by and large most people would rather discuss the same subjects over and over again in their cliques.

From my point of view Diggers, my early enthusiasm wained as there are too many people nominated and we are still only in round 1., we've got the round of 32, 16, 8 and 4 to go. In addititon there are too many Cricketers in it. Must have been 8 or 9 by now.

It's been a good idea, but poorly thought out in order to maintain interest in the long time it will take to play out to a conclusion. I expect it will get more interesting when the dross is whittled down, but that's a long way off.

I'd say it can only get more boring. We'll have had all the conversations about all the candidates already so I'm not sure what's left for the next round and even more so the ones after.

well I think in the case of someone like Federer it's because already his records surpass the very best, and he's much closer to the end of his career than the start of it. I've stated before that I didn't feel I could vote for Bolt or Messi as they're too young in their careers, but I think for guys like Federer, Woods, Tendulkar, and maybe McCaw (who's no spring chicken) it's fair enough.

wish people would stop coming onto these threads only to have a moan though. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you into these debates.

laurie,
Perhaps you feel they should be going with Going . . . . . ?

I only jest, sorry!


Hibbz,
Time for you to present your advocacy for Neil Webb.

PS: Not moaning.

[quote="super_realist"]
From my point of view Diggers, my early enthusiasm wained as there are too many people nominated and we are still only in round 1., we've got the round of 32, 16, 8 and 4 to go. In addititon there are too many Cricketers in it. Must have been 8 or 9 by now.

[quote]

Alright, we get it on the cricketers

You do have a point though on initial enthusiasm waning. I'm sure its been proposed 2 per round in the last 32, not sure but I hope its 4 per day and we could have H2H from the quarter finals.

Diggers also has a point about cliques on certain boards. I once started a perfectly reasonable thread on the Tennis board - never again I tell you, its definitely a closed shop!

aucks- fed has won the most slams- how can he not be considered?

Bolt is the fastest man ever and by some distance over the flag ship athletic event- again how can he not be considered!

What does it matter if they are still playing?- they have allready acheived more than any other in there field!

"I once started a perfectly reasonable thread on the Tennis board - never again I tell you, its definitely a closed shop!"

went there last year during wimbie.. LOL thats all i can say!

I will go back though - I can take a battering!

Kwini, the presence of Neil Webb in the competition would kill all debate stone dead there could only be one winner.

I'll join you when Wimbledon is on.

There is a real glory hunting "I support Man U" mentality on there, the love for Federer from British males is quite worrying. And then every other thread is "I hate Andy Murray" by some guy pretending to be a woman!

hibbz joins the grumpy crew- jeas you lot are bringing me down. So much for the golfers on here..

Maybe i will take up tennis

[quote="VTR"][quote="super_realist"]
From my point of view Diggers, my early enthusiasm wained as there are too many people nominated and we are still only in round 1., we've got the round of 32, 16, 8 and 4 to go. In addititon there are too many Cricketers in it. Must have been 8 or 9 by now.

Alright, we get it on the cricketers

You do have a point though on initial enthusiasm waning. I'm sure its been proposed 2 per round in the last 32, not sure but I hope its 4 per day and we could have H2H from the quarter finals.

Diggers also has a point about cliques on certain boards. I once started a perfectly reasonable thread on the Tennis board - never again I tell you, its definitely a closed shop!

Not only that, they are unbelievably serious, humourless, prim, Guardian reading and professionally Faux-fended with almost stalker like attachments to Federer and Nadal.

VTR wrote: I'll join you when Wimbledon is on.

There is a real glory hunting "I support Man U" mentality on there, the love for Federer from British males is quite worrying. And then every other thread is "I hate Andy Murray" by some guy pretending to be a woman!

hehe- see you there

aucklandlaurie wrote: Even as a New Zealand All Black supporter, I cant understand why McCaw is being considered in this competition, He just has not met the "Of all time" criteria or in other words the test of time,, for gods sake he is still playing..

On the same train of thought can anyone explain to me why current sportspeople like Bolt,Federer etc etc also are being rated as the best of all time???

I for the life of me can't understand why you feel there career has to be over to be judged. If you have already surpassed anyone previous then you have a right to be here , for instance McCaws career is by and large over anyway, anything else is just gravy.
To me it would be insane not to include Bolt in the top 64, especially when I look at some of the people we have had included.....Mr Hastings, yes I mean you.
Imagine excluding Federer from this list, it would be madness.

Precisely Diggers, whereas sportsmen who have had careers that ended before Titanic sunk are in there. Really odd and I think a reasonable criteria might have been sensible.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I think in the case of someone like Federer it's because already his records surpass the very best, and he's much closer to the end of his career than the start of it. I've stated before that I didn't feel I could vote for Bolt or Messi as they're too young in their careers, but I think for guys like Federer, Woods, Tendulkar, and maybe McCaw (who's no spring chicken) it's fair enough.

wish people would stop coming onto these threads only to have a moan though. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you into these debates.

Mad for Chelsea:

Please dont read my post as just some opportunity to have a moan, I genuinely believe that I have a valid point.

The problem with your arguement is that, you would consider O.J., Ben Johnson,Hanse Cronje, or Lance Armstrong as the Greatest of all time, just because you didnt have the patience to let time tell. Moreover does this exercise not go a bit further than just breaking records, Some genuine contenders in the mix here havent even broken a record????

kwinigolfer wrote:laurie,
Perhaps you feel they should be going with Going . . . . . ?I only jest, sorry!


Hibbz,
Time for you to present your advocacy for Neil Webb.

PS: Not moaning.

Sid Going was the greatest half back of all time...

By may be 26 or 27 but a top class sprinters career usually peaks over 4-6 years at best , the guy has had a 10 year career already as he was such a good junior.
Chances are it will be downhill for him I'm guessing with the odd peak here and there.

Firstly bolt will go the long jump route next

Then he will be playing for man united for a couple of years, then he will get a spot in the IPL.. then hey why not abit of basketball, then we will get on the seniors tour of golf..

Well thats what he dreams about anyway!!

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I think in the case of someone like Federer it's because already his records surpass the very best, and he's much closer to the end of his career than the start of it. I've stated before that I didn't feel I could vote for Bolt or Messi as they're too young in their careers, but I think for guys like Federer, Woods, Tendulkar, and maybe McCaw (who's no spring chicken) it's fair enough.

wish people would stop coming onto these threads only to have a moan though. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you into these debates.

Mad for Chelsea:

Please dont read my post as just some opportunity to have a moan, I genuinely believe that I have a valid point.

The problem with your arguement is that, you would consider O.J., Ben Johnson,Hanse Cronje, or Lance Armstrong as the Greatest of all time, just because you didnt have the patience to let time tell. Moreover does this not exercise go a bit further than just breaking records, Some genuine contenders in the mix here havent even broken a record????

I wasn't really talking about you, it was more adressed to a few people whose only presence on these threads sees them complaining... The names you mention are rather special cases, obviously. In Armstrong's case it needed (roughly) 5 years from his (first) retirement for the truth to really come out, so how long should we wait? only consider sportsmen who retired before 2000? I don't agree. I think guys like Federer are well worthy of discussion. IF in a few years some nasty facts come to life, so be it. At the end of the day, it's only a bit of fun.

mystiroakey wrote:Firstly bolt will go the long jump route next

Then he will be playing for man united for a couple of years, then he will get a spot in the IPL.. then hey why not abit of basketball, then we will get on the seniors tour of golf..

Well thats what he dreams about anyway!!

But instead he gets done for using performance enhancing drugs...

He's too heavy to be a long jumper, I think he will specialise more at 200 personally.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I think in the case of someone like Federer it's because already his records surpass the very best, and he's much closer to the end of his career than the start of it. I've stated before that I didn't feel I could vote for Bolt or Messi as they're too young in their careers, but I think for guys like Federer, Woods, Tendulkar, and maybe McCaw (who's no spring chicken) it's fair enough.

wish people would stop coming onto these threads only to have a moan though. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you into these debates.

Mad for Chelsea:

Please dont read my post as just some opportunity to have a moan, I genuinely believe that I have a valid point.

The problem with your arguement is that, you would consider O.J., Ben Johnson,Hanse Cronje, or Lance Armstrong as the Greatest of all time, just because you didnt have the patience to let time tell. Moreover does this not exercise go a bit further than just breaking records, Some genuine contenders in the mix here havent even broken a record????

I wasn't really talking about you, it was more adressed to a few people whose only presence on these threads sees them complaining... The names you mention are rather special cases, obviously. In Armstrong's case it needed (roughly) 5 years from his (first) retirement for the truth to really come out, so how long should we wait? only consider sportsmen who retired before 2000? I don't agree. I think guys like Federer are well worthy of discussion. IF in a few years some nasty facts come to life, so be it. At the end of the day, it's only a bit of fun.

Mad for chelsea, I'm pleased to see that you werent talking about me.

I dont think it has to be a set time, but at least they should have completed competing, by the way Schwatz was making the allegations about Armstrong when he was still competing.
Its OK if you dont agree with me, thats you prerogative.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I think in the case of someone like Federer it's because already his records surpass the very best, and he's much closer to the end of his career than the start of it. I've stated before that I didn't feel I could vote for Bolt or Messi as they're too young in their careers, but I think for guys like Federer, Woods, Tendulkar, and maybe McCaw (who's no spring chicken) it's fair enough.

wish people would stop coming onto these threads only to have a moan though. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you into these debates.

Mad for Chelsea:

Please dont read my post as just some opportunity to have a moan, I genuinely believe that I have a valid point.

The problem with your arguement is that, you would consider O.J., Ben Johnson,Hanse Cronje, or Lance Armstrong as the Greatest of all time, just because you didnt have the patience to let time tell. Moreover does this not exercise go a bit further than just breaking records, Some genuine contenders in the mix here havent even broken a record????

I wasn't really talking about you, it was more adressed to a few people whose only presence on these threads sees them complaining... The names you mention are rather special cases, obviously. In Armstrong's case it needed (roughly) 5 years from his (first) retirement for the truth to really come out, so how long should we wait? only consider sportsmen who retired before 2000? I don't agree. I think guys like Federer are well worthy of discussion. IF in a few years some nasty facts come to life, so be it. At the end of the day, it's only a bit of fun.

I think the people you are saying only moan have probably contributed more than most and it certainly hasn't all been moaning. But it's a sad state of affairs when you can't make negative as well as positive comments about threads.

Just to play my from the cricket HOF discussions, which are terrific by the way, I like the way most American Halls Of Fame (not golf) deal with inductions - wait until the candidate has been retired for five years. Didn't help with OJ of course, but his malfeasances (OK, homicides) were long after he retired. (The ones we know about anyway.)

This rule has certainly allowed baseball to make a measured judgement on players associated with PED's, even though the owners and commissioner were clearly complicit.

Well done Diggers...

Bunch of moaners the lot of ya....

super_realist wrote:Not only that, they are unbelievably serious, humourless, prim, Guardian reading and professionally Faux-fended with almost stalker like attachments to Federer and Nadal.

I'll have you know that I favour The Times! Seriously though, we're not all that bad

A few of us have posted on these threads, I personally enjoy the debates - how people see different sportsmen in relation to how I view them is fascinating. And learning more about different sports is always a bonus, I didn't know the first thing about baseball in particular before the Babe Ruth poll hopefully things will liven up in later rounds, if only because people might get more partisan about their sports and favourites and that could spark serious debate about merit.

Diggers wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I think in the case of someone like Federer it's because already his records surpass the very best, and he's much closer to the end of his career than the start of it. I've stated before that I didn't feel I could vote for Bolt or Messi as they're too young in their careers, but I think for guys like Federer, Woods, Tendulkar, and maybe McCaw (who's no spring chicken) it's fair enough.

wish people would stop coming onto these threads only to have a moan though. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you into these debates.

Mad for Chelsea:

Please dont read my post as just some opportunity to have a moan, I genuinely believe that I have a valid point.

The problem with your arguement is that, you would consider O.J., Ben Johnson,Hanse Cronje, or Lance Armstrong as the Greatest of all time, just because you didnt have the patience to let time tell. Moreover does this not exercise go a bit further than just breaking records, Some genuine contenders in the mix here havent even broken a record????

I wasn't really talking about you, it was more adressed to a few people whose only presence on these threads sees them complaining... The names you mention are rather special cases, obviously. In Armstrong's case it needed (roughly) 5 years from his (first) retirement for the truth to really come out, so how long should we wait? only consider sportsmen who retired before 2000? I don't agree. I think guys like Federer are well worthy of discussion. IF in a few years some nasty facts come to life, so be it. At the end of the day, it's only a bit of fun.

I think the people you are saying only moan have probably contributed more than most and it certainly hasn't all been moaning. But it's a sad state of affairs when you can't make negative as well as positive comments about threads.

It would be a sad state of affairs if you couldn't come on Internet forums and have a good moan. Surely that's the purpose of them. The alternative is taking out the frustrations of your day on your other half, which frankly can only end in tears, in my case generally my tears. Far safer to moan at and insult random anonymous strangers. Or am I missing something?